JUDGMENT : 1. Heard, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. M. I. Khan assisted by Mr. Javed Sultan, Advocates, and Mr. Mukesh Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State. 2. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 09.07.2004 and order of sentence dated 12.07.2004, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Latehar, in Sessions Trial No. 482 of 1996, whereby these appellants have been convicted for the offence committed and punishable under Section 304 part II/34 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-each, in default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for one month. 60% of the fine deposited shall go to the informant-husband of the deceased. 3. The prosecution case is based upon fardbeyan of P. W. 2, Sohrai Singh recorded by Sub-Inspector of police Birendra Kumar, officer in-charge, Manika Police Station on 11.09.1993 at 9.00 A.M., wherein the informant has alleged that on 31.08.1993 at around 10 P.M. all the three accused persons came to his house. On the call of the accused Jhumar Singh, informant opened the door of his house. Thereafter, the accused persons entered into the house and started assaulting his wife by means of fist, kick and lathi causing injury, calling her witch(daain) and thereafter, all accused persons returned, threatening of dire consequence. The wife of the informant was given domestic medical treatment, but on 6.09.1993 wife of the informant stopped talking. The informant informed his brother-in-law, Jagdish Singh, who came to the house of informant and took informant's wife to his house, at village odan, Police Station Latehar, the informant also accompanied them. The condition of the wife of informant further deteriorated on 10.9.1993, then she was taken to state dispensary Manika for medical treatment, where in course of medical treatment, wife of the informant, Budhani Devi died on 11.09.1993 at about 7.30 A.M. Thereafter, the F.I.R. was lodged at Manika Police Station. 4. On the basis of the written report of the informant, Police instituted First Informant Report bearing Manika P. S. Case No. 30 of 1993, dated 11.09.1993, under Section 304/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. After investigation, the police submitted charge sheet vide charge sheet no. 4. On the basis of the written report of the informant, Police instituted First Informant Report bearing Manika P. S. Case No. 30 of 1993, dated 11.09.1993, under Section 304/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. After investigation, the police submitted charge sheet vide charge sheet no. 24 of 1993, dated 27.09.1993, under Section 304/34 of the Indian Penal Code, against all three named accused persons, namely Arjun Singh, Jhumar Singh and Gobardhan Singh. 6. The cognizance of the offence has been taken vide order dated 18.10.1993 and the case has been committed to the court of Sessions vide order dated 18.09.1996. The learned trial Court has framed charge against the three accused persons namely Arjun Singh, Jhumar Singh and Gobardhan Singh, on 04.06.1999, under Sections 304/34 of the Indian Penal Code, to which the accused persons have pleaded their innocence and thus, they were put under trial. 7. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, has examined altogether four witnesses and also exhibited a number of documentary evidence. Jagdish Singh (brother-in-law of informant) has been examined as P. W. 1, Sohrai Singh (informant of the case) has been examined as P. W. 2, Dr. Ram Naresh Sharma (medical officer, who conducted postmortem examination of the deceased) has been examined as P. W. 3 and Manoj Kumar Gupta (formal witness and clerk of the public prosecutor) has been examined as P. W.4. Apart from oral evidence, the signature of Jagdish Singh (P.W.1), on the fardbeyan, has been proved and marked as exhibit 1, carbon copy of postmortem report has been proved and marked as exhibit 2, whole First Information Report has been proved and marked as exhibit 3 and carbon copy of case diary from paras 01 to 30 has been proved and marked as exhibit 4. 8. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the appellants have been recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C. on 21.06.2004, wherein the appellants have categorically stated that, they are innocent and there is no legal materiel against them. 9. After hearing the parties and after perusal of record, the learned trial Court has passed the impugned judgment of conviction dated 09.07.2004 and order of sentence dated 12.07.2004, in S. T. Case No. 482 of 1996. P. C. on 21.06.2004, wherein the appellants have categorically stated that, they are innocent and there is no legal materiel against them. 9. After hearing the parties and after perusal of record, the learned trial Court has passed the impugned judgment of conviction dated 09.07.2004 and order of sentence dated 12.07.2004, in S. T. Case No. 482 of 1996. Being aggrieved at and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, appellants have preferred the present criminal appeal, assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 10. Heard, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. M. I. Khan assisted by Mr. Javed Sultan, Advocates. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted, that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is bad in law and cannot sustain in the eyes of law. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted, that there is inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R., which has been lodged after death of the victim i.e on 11.09.1993, whereas, as per the prosecution case, date of occurrence is of 31.08.1993, but no explanation has been given by the prosecution about the delay. As per the prosecution case, the lady has stopped talking on 6.9.1993 but even then no information was given to the police or choukidar. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted, that Doctor, Dr. Ram Naresh Sharma (P. W.3), who has conducted the postmortem examination of the deceased, has found cause of death, as perforated peptic (gastric) ulcer and has found healed wound on right parietal region. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted, that in absence of any specific allegation, the appellants cannot be convicted, where deceased died because of perforated peptic (gastric) ulcer. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted, that victim died because disease of perforated peptic (gastric) ulcer and as such, the appellants cannot be held responsible for death of the victim and cannot be convicted for the offence committed and punishable under Section 304 part II/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted, that victim died because disease of perforated peptic (gastric) ulcer and as such, the appellants cannot be held responsible for death of the victim and cannot be convicted for the offence committed and punishable under Section 304 part II/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted, that investigating officer of the case has not been examined as such, serious prejudice has been caused to the appellants, as no opportunity has been given to the appellants to cross-examine the investigating officer, with regard to delay in lodging the FIR., manner of occurrence and place of occurrence in order to prove their innocence and false implication in this case. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted, that under the aforesaid circumstances, the appellants deserved to be acquitted of charge and conviction under Section 304 part II/34 of the Indian Penal Code extending benefit of doubt. 11. Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted, that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is based on material brought on record and the learned trial Court is justified in convicting the appellants/accused under Section 304 part II/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted, that brother-in-law of the informant, Jagdish Singh has been examined as P. W.1 and Sohrai Singh, who is husband of the deceased and informant of the case has been examined as P. W. 2, Dr. Ram Naresh Sharma is the medical officer, who proved the postmortem examination report and marked as exhibit 2, which are sufficient for conviction of the appellants under Section 304 part II/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted, that since the appellants have been rightly convicted by the learned trial Court, this Court may not interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence at this stage. 12. Heard, Learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. M.I. Khan assisted by Mr. Javed Sultan and Mr. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted, that since the appellants have been rightly convicted by the learned trial Court, this Court may not interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence at this stage. 12. Heard, Learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. M.I. Khan assisted by Mr. Javed Sultan and Mr. Mukesh Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and from perusal of the record, i.e. First Information Report, framing of the charge, evidence of four prosecution witnesses and four exhibits and the statement of the appellants recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. This Court has scrutinized the evidence of P. W. 1, Jagdish Singh, who is hearsay witness. Soharai Singh (P. W. 2), informant and husband of the deceased, who has stated that, the accused persons entered into the house and assaulted the wife of the informant by means of lathi but this witness has not stated that, which part of body of the victim has been assaulted by which of appellant. This Court has also found that, the none of the independent witnesses have been examined in this case. There is inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R. of approximately 11 days and in the meantime, no information has been given to the police nor to the choukidar nor the choukidar has informed such, occurrence to the police officer of local police station. On 6.09.1993, when the wife of the informant stopped talking, even then the informant or brother-in-law of the informant neither disclosed to the choukidar nor the police officer about any cognizable offence as alleged by prosecution and only after death of wife of the informant, Budhani Devi, the First Information Report was lodged. The Investigating officer has not been examined and as such, appellants have been seriously prejudiced because of non-examination of the Investigating officer, as no opportunity has been given to the appellants to cross-examine the Investigating officer, with respect to date of occurrence, delay in lodging First Information Report, manner of occurrence, place of occurrence and the police requisition for medical examination. This court has also found that, cause of death of deceased is perforated peptic (gastric) ulcer as per post mortem report (exhibit-2). This court has also found that, cause of death of deceased is perforated peptic (gastric) ulcer as per post mortem report (exhibit-2). The injury, which was found on the head of the deceased, was healed up injury, but no initial medical report with respect to injury No. 1, which was found on the head, has been bought on record. Under the aforesaid circumstances, as discussed above, this Court is extending benefit of doubt in favour of the appellants, as the prosecution has been miserably failed to prove the case against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt. 13. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the considered view that, the impugned judgment of conviction dated 09.07.2004 and order of sentence dated 12.07.2004 in S.T. No. 482 of 1996, arising out of Manika P. S. case No.30 of 1993, corresponding to G.R. No.365/1993, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Latehar, is not sustainable in the eyes of law and thus, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is hereby set aside. 14. The appellants, who are already on bail is discharged from the liability of their bail bonds. 15. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands allowed. 16. Let L.C.R. along with a copy of this judgment be sent to the court concerned at once.